Kozmos
Jew Detective
Maybe I need to write on how to be an evil Illuminati style manipulator.Influence everything behind the shadows.The Invisible Hand.
Guide to NESing!
- Thread starter Gelion
- Start date
Communisto
Condottiere
it has been done
alex994
Hail Divine Emperor!
Very good communisto, but u dun have anything about preparing urself against infiltration and informants inside your group, that's what i did in storm's nes when i was Uk and u were the IRA.
das
Regeneration In Process
Hmm, yes. Watch out for traitors. But, with a decentralized cell structure, they are unlikely to be of serious impact.
Gelion
Retired Captain
Yes plz do the diplomacy stuff.....
das
Regeneration In Process
I SHOULD have a lot of time tomorrow....
das
Regeneration In Process
OOC: Didn't turn out very well, I'm afraid. But I hope that with your assistance I could make it better. What do you think I should add? Change?
IC:
Guide to Diplomacy in NESing
"Diplomacy, n. the patriotic act of lying for one's country."
- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary" (pre-NES).
Even the finest tactic or the most ingenous strategy can easily become worthless in this one situation that is all-too-common in real life and in NESing - in the case of betrayal, betrayal organized by diplomacy. Thus while good strategy often beats good tactics, good diplomacy often beats good strategy - but it is much harder to execute a succesful diplomatic campaign, for while in tactics and strategy it is all much more straightforward, with a more-or-less clear enemy and allies, in diplomacy, the truth is this - one must never trust anyone. One must always be at least somehow ready for the possibility of betrayal, and one must never place all hopes on just one ally.
From this we can also draw this conclusion - all treaties of any kind, whether posted in thread or send by PM, are rarely worth the bytes they take up. A right of passage? It will often be used to destroy your troops while in transit. NAP? A mere formality that is most often signed just before an invasion. Even formal military alliances often turn out to be useless when seriously tested.
It is not the treaties themselves that one must trust, but the profit. What would France (in stAmenNESI) gain from supporting us, as promised? And what for betraying? The latter evidently outweighs the former, as one with time realizes - and France did betray us. Only when interests - i.e. possibility to gain profit, to improve one's position - of one country coincide with that of another can a reliable alliance be signed. The only "safe" [1] right of passage is through a territory with a smaller army and an interest to see that larger nation nearby dealt a nasty blow - but as soon as that enemy becomes likely to be crippled for a long time, expect treachery from the smaller state, for now it will fear your strenght instead. The only "safe" [1] non-agression pact is a one with a power which would have no real profit in attacking you (note: almost all have). The only safe alliance is with a power that has not much of a/no border with you and is feeling that it can gain much by counterweighting in any way a common enemy. Yes, a common enemy - no alliances have any point to them without an obvious common enemy.
Naturally, it is stupid to reject offers of NAP and whatnot that come in. But one most always be sceptical about them and be ready for at least two possibilities - that the offer is sincere, or that it is not. Betrayal will not neccessarily come immediately, so one must be prepared for it all the time - in the orders, one always must have at least the troops being ready for betrayal, whilst in your own head you must always have at least one back-up plan "in the event of betrayal". One must never forget that it is not the treaties that matter, the treaties are often mere formality, are words. What is important are deeds, and whether your treaty partner can carry them out and will gain more profit (either short-term, either long-term) from them, or at least thinks so at the moment. As soon as an alliance (for example) no longer is mutually-profitable, or if it never was such, then there is no point to it. Never trust those who have something to gain from betrayal, especially if those gains outweigh the gains from an alliance. Also remember the difference between short-term and long-term gains, and that situation does evolve. What was at first profitable may no longer be after just a little while. Short-term benefits - such as not being crushed - are outweighed by long-term handicap to any territorial expansion (for example).
To conclude, for competent defensive diplomacy one must be able to judge gains of your allies, enemies and neutrals from various courses of actions, and to act accordingly.
DEFENSIVE diplomacy? Yes. What I described is just one part of it, the way to defend yourself against betrayal and to determine what treaties have any meaning and what none. There is also offensive diplomacy. How to form alliances, to sign treaties and to reach compromises with your enemy? How to betray - and not just betray, but betray artfully, at no large cost for yourself and inflicting massive damage on the enemy?
Here, albeit the profits of the other players are also an important consideration, you should try and formulate your own aims and interests. What do you want? The betterment of your state, but by which means? By maintenance of peace? Then don't join any offensive alliances, though defensive alliances might as well be encouraged, as they always could possibly benefit you. By expansion in a certain direction? Ally with someone who too has a grudge with the power preventing your expansion, that too has something to gain from a war with it, and agree to partition the gains - ofcourse, often enough you would soon have to afterwards deal with your former ally, so be ready for it. If you fear a certain power or alliance of powers, create an international alliance to counterweight it. NAPs? Don't offer them most of the times, they're pointless, but always agree to them. Remember - those powers that wish you harm will somehow attack you, whether directly or not, whether militarily or by the means of spies, whether NAP or not, while those who do not seek to somehow hurt you won't attack you even without a NAP. Should you support your ally even though it might actually harm your interests and your country to no gain? That depends on how important your alliance with that ally is. In other words, you should always follow your interests, and always act according to them, but ofcourse your interests should evolve and the priorities should be altered depending on the overall situation.
When trying to offer someone an alliance, or any other treaty, always remember that neither ideology, nor past history, nor for that matter any OOC friendship actually matter; what matters is profit. Reveal to those with whom you are trying to deal what do THEY get out of it, whatever it is, and how it outweighs any other courses of action. Remember the importance of making minor concessions, tactical retreats in exchange for the strategic victory - for a mutually-profitable treaty. When faced by a counter-offer, consider it carefully, and consider if the required concessions, if any, outweigh the importance of a treaty (always also remember that in the long-term you can regain all that you surrendered), and if the altered treaty is still worth as much as you need. Remember - a mutually-profitable treaty should be just that, profitable to both sides, yourself included. When told "we'll think about it" - wait, but remember that this does NOT mean a treaty as of yet.
Same with peace treaties. Remember about your interests, but also remember that short-term concessions can always be nullified later on one way or another. In other words, remember that long-term interests outweigh short-term ones. When facing defeat, thus, make concessions. Remember the interests of your enemies as well, and try to undermine their coalition (they could, ofcourse, do it for you like in CapNES2). Try to persuade your enemies, one by one perhaps, on how lighter terms could benefit THEM - remind them, for instance, of some nefarious third power or of their own allies that will surely make good use of your weakness. If you feel that you really cannot fight on militarily, well, accept the harsh treaty but try to work your way into the favor of the victors and then use it to peacefully regain much of it that was lost.
And if you are winning - well, consider interests of your allies, but also of the defeated foes, and of certain third powers as well. If you think it will be mutually profitable, try (perhaps along with some of your allies) to also write up a secret treaty, to persuade your foe that those short-term concessions, and a re-direction of foreign policy to alliance with you against others - like those of your allies that only allied with you out of neccessity to defeat this foe, or the ever-present Third Powers or even the yet-undefeated allies of that foe. But do not alienate your allies, especially those whom you still need - as for the others... only if you think you are ready to fight them, in case it is needed. Remember - it is hard to appease all sides in the treaty, so try to appease those whom you need as allies. If you need your former enemy as an ally... then don't hurt him too much and persuade, in-thread, your allies to make the treaty slightly less damaging to him. But all this is specifics, ofcourse. Mostly, you should simply sign the treaty in your best interests, but never forget that one of your most important interests is finding and keeping allies.
Treachery. Firstly, the moral issue of it - remember, it may seem immoral to suddenly backstab and attack an ally, but so that your conscience doesn't bother you, keep reminding yourself that all other players are also very sneaky bastards, and that your ally will backstab you as soon as he realizes that it will benefit him more then an alliance with you. So your betrayal is simply a pre-emptive one, a one that allows you to fight in a more favorable situation. Ofcourse, you must be sure that it is a favorable situation; betray him when it suits your interests, and when it will bring you more profit then remaining an ally - for example, if he is fighting a losing war. If you still need that ally, then don't betray him, continue to assist him, though ofcourse you must be ready for him to betray you.
After the fact of your betrayal is already known, usually after the update, you can always defend yourself from international outcry by finding some obscure treaty clause or some evidence of your ally's betrayal or anything in fact, but, basically, justification does not matter any more then a NAP, the "importance" of which I already discussed.
Also remember this - if your gamble fails, but your former ally still needs your help, you can always pretend nothing happened and rejoin the alliance. Ofcourse, much good trust would be wasted by this. But if your ally has any sense in him, and supposedly if he succeeded to defeat your betrayal attempt he does, then he will know that nobody can even trust anybody more then 99%. Usually a lot lower.
Disgusting? Perhaps. Yes, the face of international diplomacy, in NES and in real life, is not a very pretty one, as interests of different allies often enough come into conflict. Yes, in a way it is tragic that one can never really trust anybody but himself in NESing. But, to me at least, the diplomatic intrigue is one of the more fun parts of it. NESing is simply not meant for those people who can't lie for their country, IC at least.
[1] Ofcourse, nothing is truly safe, as there are always insane players, heavy disinformation and other special situations. But it is comparatively safe.
IC:
Guide to Diplomacy in NESing
"Diplomacy, n. the patriotic act of lying for one's country."
- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary" (pre-NES).
Even the finest tactic or the most ingenous strategy can easily become worthless in this one situation that is all-too-common in real life and in NESing - in the case of betrayal, betrayal organized by diplomacy. Thus while good strategy often beats good tactics, good diplomacy often beats good strategy - but it is much harder to execute a succesful diplomatic campaign, for while in tactics and strategy it is all much more straightforward, with a more-or-less clear enemy and allies, in diplomacy, the truth is this - one must never trust anyone. One must always be at least somehow ready for the possibility of betrayal, and one must never place all hopes on just one ally.
From this we can also draw this conclusion - all treaties of any kind, whether posted in thread or send by PM, are rarely worth the bytes they take up. A right of passage? It will often be used to destroy your troops while in transit. NAP? A mere formality that is most often signed just before an invasion. Even formal military alliances often turn out to be useless when seriously tested.
It is not the treaties themselves that one must trust, but the profit. What would France (in stAmenNESI) gain from supporting us, as promised? And what for betraying? The latter evidently outweighs the former, as one with time realizes - and France did betray us. Only when interests - i.e. possibility to gain profit, to improve one's position - of one country coincide with that of another can a reliable alliance be signed. The only "safe" [1] right of passage is through a territory with a smaller army and an interest to see that larger nation nearby dealt a nasty blow - but as soon as that enemy becomes likely to be crippled for a long time, expect treachery from the smaller state, for now it will fear your strenght instead. The only "safe" [1] non-agression pact is a one with a power which would have no real profit in attacking you (note: almost all have). The only safe alliance is with a power that has not much of a/no border with you and is feeling that it can gain much by counterweighting in any way a common enemy. Yes, a common enemy - no alliances have any point to them without an obvious common enemy.
Naturally, it is stupid to reject offers of NAP and whatnot that come in. But one most always be sceptical about them and be ready for at least two possibilities - that the offer is sincere, or that it is not. Betrayal will not neccessarily come immediately, so one must be prepared for it all the time - in the orders, one always must have at least the troops being ready for betrayal, whilst in your own head you must always have at least one back-up plan "in the event of betrayal". One must never forget that it is not the treaties that matter, the treaties are often mere formality, are words. What is important are deeds, and whether your treaty partner can carry them out and will gain more profit (either short-term, either long-term) from them, or at least thinks so at the moment. As soon as an alliance (for example) no longer is mutually-profitable, or if it never was such, then there is no point to it. Never trust those who have something to gain from betrayal, especially if those gains outweigh the gains from an alliance. Also remember the difference between short-term and long-term gains, and that situation does evolve. What was at first profitable may no longer be after just a little while. Short-term benefits - such as not being crushed - are outweighed by long-term handicap to any territorial expansion (for example).
To conclude, for competent defensive diplomacy one must be able to judge gains of your allies, enemies and neutrals from various courses of actions, and to act accordingly.
DEFENSIVE diplomacy? Yes. What I described is just one part of it, the way to defend yourself against betrayal and to determine what treaties have any meaning and what none. There is also offensive diplomacy. How to form alliances, to sign treaties and to reach compromises with your enemy? How to betray - and not just betray, but betray artfully, at no large cost for yourself and inflicting massive damage on the enemy?
Here, albeit the profits of the other players are also an important consideration, you should try and formulate your own aims and interests. What do you want? The betterment of your state, but by which means? By maintenance of peace? Then don't join any offensive alliances, though defensive alliances might as well be encouraged, as they always could possibly benefit you. By expansion in a certain direction? Ally with someone who too has a grudge with the power preventing your expansion, that too has something to gain from a war with it, and agree to partition the gains - ofcourse, often enough you would soon have to afterwards deal with your former ally, so be ready for it. If you fear a certain power or alliance of powers, create an international alliance to counterweight it. NAPs? Don't offer them most of the times, they're pointless, but always agree to them. Remember - those powers that wish you harm will somehow attack you, whether directly or not, whether militarily or by the means of spies, whether NAP or not, while those who do not seek to somehow hurt you won't attack you even without a NAP. Should you support your ally even though it might actually harm your interests and your country to no gain? That depends on how important your alliance with that ally is. In other words, you should always follow your interests, and always act according to them, but ofcourse your interests should evolve and the priorities should be altered depending on the overall situation.
When trying to offer someone an alliance, or any other treaty, always remember that neither ideology, nor past history, nor for that matter any OOC friendship actually matter; what matters is profit. Reveal to those with whom you are trying to deal what do THEY get out of it, whatever it is, and how it outweighs any other courses of action. Remember the importance of making minor concessions, tactical retreats in exchange for the strategic victory - for a mutually-profitable treaty. When faced by a counter-offer, consider it carefully, and consider if the required concessions, if any, outweigh the importance of a treaty (always also remember that in the long-term you can regain all that you surrendered), and if the altered treaty is still worth as much as you need. Remember - a mutually-profitable treaty should be just that, profitable to both sides, yourself included. When told "we'll think about it" - wait, but remember that this does NOT mean a treaty as of yet.
Same with peace treaties. Remember about your interests, but also remember that short-term concessions can always be nullified later on one way or another. In other words, remember that long-term interests outweigh short-term ones. When facing defeat, thus, make concessions. Remember the interests of your enemies as well, and try to undermine their coalition (they could, ofcourse, do it for you like in CapNES2). Try to persuade your enemies, one by one perhaps, on how lighter terms could benefit THEM - remind them, for instance, of some nefarious third power or of their own allies that will surely make good use of your weakness. If you feel that you really cannot fight on militarily, well, accept the harsh treaty but try to work your way into the favor of the victors and then use it to peacefully regain much of it that was lost.
And if you are winning - well, consider interests of your allies, but also of the defeated foes, and of certain third powers as well. If you think it will be mutually profitable, try (perhaps along with some of your allies) to also write up a secret treaty, to persuade your foe that those short-term concessions, and a re-direction of foreign policy to alliance with you against others - like those of your allies that only allied with you out of neccessity to defeat this foe, or the ever-present Third Powers or even the yet-undefeated allies of that foe. But do not alienate your allies, especially those whom you still need - as for the others... only if you think you are ready to fight them, in case it is needed. Remember - it is hard to appease all sides in the treaty, so try to appease those whom you need as allies. If you need your former enemy as an ally... then don't hurt him too much and persuade, in-thread, your allies to make the treaty slightly less damaging to him. But all this is specifics, ofcourse. Mostly, you should simply sign the treaty in your best interests, but never forget that one of your most important interests is finding and keeping allies.
Treachery. Firstly, the moral issue of it - remember, it may seem immoral to suddenly backstab and attack an ally, but so that your conscience doesn't bother you, keep reminding yourself that all other players are also very sneaky bastards, and that your ally will backstab you as soon as he realizes that it will benefit him more then an alliance with you. So your betrayal is simply a pre-emptive one, a one that allows you to fight in a more favorable situation. Ofcourse, you must be sure that it is a favorable situation; betray him when it suits your interests, and when it will bring you more profit then remaining an ally - for example, if he is fighting a losing war. If you still need that ally, then don't betray him, continue to assist him, though ofcourse you must be ready for him to betray you.
After the fact of your betrayal is already known, usually after the update, you can always defend yourself from international outcry by finding some obscure treaty clause or some evidence of your ally's betrayal or anything in fact, but, basically, justification does not matter any more then a NAP, the "importance" of which I already discussed.
Also remember this - if your gamble fails, but your former ally still needs your help, you can always pretend nothing happened and rejoin the alliance. Ofcourse, much good trust would be wasted by this. But if your ally has any sense in him, and supposedly if he succeeded to defeat your betrayal attempt he does, then he will know that nobody can even trust anybody more then 99%. Usually a lot lower.
Disgusting? Perhaps. Yes, the face of international diplomacy, in NES and in real life, is not a very pretty one, as interests of different allies often enough come into conflict. Yes, in a way it is tragic that one can never really trust anybody but himself in NESing. But, to me at least, the diplomatic intrigue is one of the more fun parts of it. NESing is simply not meant for those people who can't lie for their country, IC at least.
[1] Ofcourse, nothing is truly safe, as there are always insane players, heavy disinformation and other special situations. But it is comparatively safe.
North King
blech
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2004
- Messages
- 18,165
However, das, some are more likely to betray than others. Like, for example, I have never actually executed a betrayal.
Gelion
Retired Captain
Das I've read parts of it and it seems good. I will finish it sometime later and I might suggest some changes in structure. Contents is good...
Oruc
Reactionary
i never conduct diplomacy like that
das
Regeneration In Process
Because you never saw any real benefit in it. Ofcourse, on the other hand, some people who fear that betrayal is too dangerous for the traitor as well, and don't want to risk it - perfectly reasonable, IMHO, as it IS very risky.
Tough luck.
Oruc
Reactionary
das said:Tough luck.
you should find yourself one ally, has to be a neighbour tho and stick with him no matter what crap he gets into, i usually trust my ally completely although i always pick a neser i like, thats what i like to do anyway i mean 2 economies are better then 1
North King
blech
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2004
- Messages
- 18,165
das said:
Wrong. For example, there was no benefit to me in duking it out as the Ottomans in CapNES2, if I was only going for what benefitted me, I would have stayed neutral...
But I honored my alliance. Why? Not because it benefitted me, but because it was the right thing to do.
I am such a moralist.
Xen said:
Ditto.
das
Regeneration In Process
Precisely. That happens to be a mutually-profitable alliance, no?
Um, no. Staying neutral would not have benefited you as Britain and Persia are your only allies. Guess what happens after they're no more?
North King
blech
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2004
- Messages
- 18,165
das said:
Fine, not staying neutral, but joining the Entente outright is what I should've done, if I was an honorless jerk who wished only to win.
But I'm not, and I didn't.
das
Regeneration In Process
Oh, and Xen? Tell that to Loki.
But, joining the Entente is also hardly a natural course of action for Turkey, because Entente consists, for the most part, of its natural enemies. So, again, what you did, whether you like it or not, for your best interests in the situation that appeared.
North King
blech
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2004
- Messages
- 18,165
das said:
It was in my best interest to join in a war on the extremely outnumbered side of things?
alex994
Hail Divine Emperor!
betrayal is the bread and butter of diplomacy, but only for those cruel hearted enough.
das
Regeneration In Process
It wasn't the best course of action. All things considered I do see a way you could have prospered by joining the Entente (won't tell you yet, though!), but what you really did is, at least, the second best thing you could have done. The other path in the long-term could, with a lot of luck, have brought you to victory (read: continued survival as a great power), but it is also very risky.
